Multi part question. Wiki sites are member written. How much do you trust them? Since we refute and debate do we have chance to equal them?
I view it with a little bit of suspicion for that reason, yet many people use it as if it is the same as Encyclopedia Britanica or other tried and tested resource material.
In time with effort by our members do you feel we can equal their "quotable factor"?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$5 Answers
But in school, giving Wikipedia as your source is equal to stating "I lost my brains along the way" - students didn't pay so much attention to their task or were to lazy to search for a reliable source. Teachers tend to give you a bad mark when you're brave enough to admit that you've only looked things up at Wikipedia and that you trust that site and its information. So no, even though it makes search so very easy, I don't think it's 100% reliable.
I also don't think that our effort could make such a source better or more reliable. Writers on Wikipedia may have the same intention, but the result stays imperfect. The problem is, that people aren't perfect, they make mistakes (even if they're trying hard and aren't aware of it) - so the source wouldn't be professional, either. Another problem is that there have to be people looking up what someone writes, edits or addes. It costs so much time and money, but the results wouldn't be so much better than the ones we already find by asking Wikipedea. So no, I don't think it can be made any better, just because we want to make it better. But if someone has another idea or view, I'm thrilled to get to know it - maybe there's a better way indeed.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
It always depends on who is doing the writing. Wikipedia is as reliable as any encyclopedia. because any work that large will always have some errata. That is why encyclopedias have to publish errata sheets. Wikipedia accuracy is based on the sheer number of people who refer to it. When something is inaccurate or someone tries to insert misinformation it is usually caught and that is why we hear about it. Do you think the same is true for misinformation in an encyclopedia?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Oh how funny! That sort of is the point I am trying to get across...once something is put out as fact and passed along....how do you determine it's accuracy unless it's backed with provable fact.
Good answer, great example. Considering the topic, I'd say you should give the source ;)... just kidding. No seriously, I really think that was a good answer. Still I would say that encyclopedias are more reliable and they have a far better reputation. I agree upon Wikipedia being not that inaccurate - and if you want to edit an article, there's always someone who checks if your effort is good or rubbish. I really like that. What I think is the best about Wikipedia IS the fact that so mane people can offer new information: It is always updated and usually it's not like you taking some information from Wikipedia and someone else saying "That's not right at all!", usually the information ARE alright. It's just that mistakes is what we hear about most. Plus, Wikipedia offers information about far more topics than a encyclopedia usually can. The sources are also given, so I wouldn't say it's a bad source at all, it just not 100% correct and usually has a bad reputation.
I'd like to give everyone "Best Answer" for this. Please accept my tip of $1 in appreciation!
Our of these print titme which are not a collaborative writing effrot?
-School text books
-Encyclopedias
- texts such as the Bible, Koran, Talmud, and etc
-Government Laws
The point is that the same rules and guidelines that we use to determine whether printed collaborative works are accurate also applies to new internet collaborative writing such as wikipedia, mahalo,and etc.
usually, when I read such collaborative written items as wikipedia and etc I check sources mentioned and unmentioned, authors, and etc before I rely on the information, perspectives, and analysis being presented in the collaborative work.
The only major difference that you have to be prepared for is the edits/version of internet collaborative works change a lot faster than printed collaborative works. If you are unsure of a point you cannot verify wait and the public will at some point debate that point and reach a more accurate detail of that point.
As a side point the reason why I like both Mahalo, wikipedia and Google Knol is that each has set up a governance approach that seems to work with their collaborators in producing accurate information that can be relied upon.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
The creator of Wikipedia has said many of its entries are "a horrific embarrassment."
My theory is that many of the articles are written by college kids that happen to be learning about a certain subject and modify an article with the perspective their professor has given them without wholly understanding the subject. This leads to simple mistakes that leave one questioning the validity of the entire article.
However, from the research I've done, Wikipedia is fairly accurate, and suffers more from omissions of central, important themes and data than mistakes. If the articles do have citations, many are blogs or websites that don't even exist.
I have often found articles that are just horribly written with no citations, and none of it seems to have been flagged or double-checked. But I have also learned much from the better written articles on history, science, and art.
I don't think there is any way that Mahalo could be referenced, seeing as I have rarely seen a Mahalo answer that is properly cited (considering this would be an overbearing requirement and a disincentive for people to use it).
This is not to say the answers are not useful; I find that many Mahalo users are professionals or retirees that gladly give their time and expertise to the community. I'm just saying it won't hold up for any formal research.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
I'd like to give everyone "Best Answer" for this. Please accept my tip of $1 in appreciation!
I have used Wikipedia myself too and found sites that led to someone's blog (I was something about Clinton, but can't remember exactly what I wanted to find....may have just been surfing) and that was when I became suspicious.
Actually, we are more easily reference than we know unless we look up something on Google.......I found this site on a very obscure issue about my old hometown.
I neither agree or disagree...we have all seen monster sites of the 90's all but dissappear and little search engines grow.
When it comes to the internet....clearly we see changes none of us foresaw!
Actually...I see great potential with Mahalo IF we continue on the path we're on now. We have some great minds and a helpful staff....the indexing issue could present a problem...but I just tried a test with google....I searched odd wording for questions I've been involved with....EVERY one of them actually came up on the first page of google results.
I really think we'll see an increase of popularity with time and effort on our parts as well.
That said, the trick is knowing when you're in the bad part of town. Not all of Wikipedia gets the same attention, and there is no obvious way for casual users to tell if they've wandered off into the more ill-founded areas. If you have the time, go to some of the referenced sources, and double check using other sources.
The more general question was Wikis in general. Other wikis have different levels of editing and user-generation. Wikipedia is probably the only case where the shear number of writers and editing tends to drive it towards accuracy. For other wikis, you have to consider who created it, who is allowed to edit it, and what standards are used to validate and correct information.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
I'd like to give everyone "Best Answer" for this. Please accept my tip of $1 in appreciation!
Oh I do think it can be useful.....even in the bad parts of town (LOVE that phrase for a web site) you can find a jewel.
I think my real concern with Wikipedia is that America's youth seem to be treating it as if it were the only source material. Even when told not to use it for class work....they start they and just don't use it as a source material.
I agree with your teachers overall, if you don't check wiki sources you may end up with bad info.
That "lost my brains" quote is cute....
I think Mahalo CAN be as referenced if users don"t only use google and wiki....if we take the extra time to check sources, find more obscure pages that are accurate and use other search engines, bots and blogs when appropriate.
Google and Wiki can give you a start.....but as with all internet info......we must use caution,
I think you are also correct about Mahalo not being well known enough....I stumbled on it completely by accident.
The problem with Mahalo is, it's not very well-known. A few days ago a question of mine was directed from twitter (another not-so-well-known site here in Germany...) to Mahalo and that's how I came across this site first. Here in Germany, it's literally nothing compared to Wikipedia or other websites. I seriously don't know anybody in person that uses Mahalo or runs an account here. I wonder what we could do to make it more popular ? It's a good thing that twitter directs questions, I think, but still we should try best to make at a reliable source. I'd like to help making it a better source, but sometimes even I have to find sources and if there's nothing better than Wikipedia, I doubt that Mahalo will be taken as a serious source.
Never mind, at least we should give it a try ! Thanks for encouraging my will to check my sources better in the future.